UC carers element tribunal won but

Yamor

6tw6et said:

Yamor said:

My strong advice would be to leave it alone.

What you are looking for is a decision to change your UC award (known as a 'supersession') on the grounds that there has been a change of circumstances, but backdated for more than the 6 months you've already been given.

However, with limited exceptions, such a supersession can only take effect from the start of the AP in which you reported the change, or from the start of the AP in which the change occured (if you have good reason for reporting it late). It is not possible for the change to have occurred, say, 3 years ago, but to get 6 months of backdating even if you have good reason in that period.
As such, if the Tribunal awarded you with 6 months backdating, then you MUST have argued that the change of circumstances only actually occurred 6 months before you reported the change of circumstances.
If you now attempt to say that the change actually happened much earlier, then you are opening up the possibility for DWP to override the Tribunal decision (one of the very few situations when they can do this) on the grounds that the Tribunal decision was based on a mistake as to a material fact, and they could remove the 6 months backdating you were already given.
You couldn't even argue that you started caring for 35 hours back in 2020, but then, say, stopped caring a month or two prior to the date the tribunal awarded it to you from, and then restarted caring for 35 hours a month or two later. This wouldn't work, as although your new backdating request does not contradict the tribunal decision, it is still an entirely new request and would be stymied by the 13-month absolute time limit for backdating based on having good reason for reporting late.

And just to clarify, the cases you have heard of, where people are getting the carer element backdated for much longer, that is only where the claimant was awarded Carer's Allowance at the time (but didn't get the Carer Element added to their UC), or where the person they're caring for is a family member (meaning partner or child who lives with them, but not a father or other relatives), and that person was only awarded PIP at the time you started caring for them for 35 hours. In such cases there is a special rule which allows unlimited backdating. But this doesn't apply to you anyway.

yes... This is really interesting and it is complicated and I don't have much knowledge on it because I've only ever claimed universal credit my whole life when I wasn't working and then my dad just got really bad in Covid... there was no one else to look after him. That is the situation now.

And what I'm saying about just not knowing about the caring element was through the job centre do not properly advise you... and then when you get all panicky, you start thinking tribunal long period. They might say no et cetera.

This is one thing I didn't think about was this 13 month rule so what I'm trying to ascertain here, yes I have mentioned this to the job centre and stated to them that I'm just looking into this... at this stage, I haven't put any official request sent because I said I'm still looking at my details... this is why I want you to get some solid advice frist... so this 13 month rule basically means that it wouldn't work irrespective of what I said because if there was no point, I don't want to start it?


Let it be known there are still hundreds of thousands of people across the UK that are not claiming benefits they are entitled to. I just never thought that would happen to me but I've learned a lot from this situation. That's why I'm on here trying to get the correct information.

My previous post may not be accurate actually - I didn't realise that your backdating success at the Tribunal was based on the Tribunal accepting that you had in fact reported the change of circumstances 6 months earlier (albeit in a more informal way). As such, you were not necessarily saying to the Tribunal that the change of circumstances happened only 6 months before you formally reported it.

However, I still can't see you succeeding in getting a new supersession decision to include the carer element from even further back, because of the 13 month rule.

6tw6et

Yes, so basically... the DWP refused to backdate it even one day... usual procedure with them... mandatory reconsideration completely rejected... I only took it to the tribunal to prove a point and then I literally forgot about it because it took nine months. I wasn't expecting it to work.

The fact that I didn't have to physically go to the tribunal is the reason that I did it.

The judge ruled in my favour for the full six months. He did make references to notes on my journal because they don't just come to this decision from nowhere.

But yeah, this 13 month rule... that's a different story so

is it a black-and-white thing in law because I really don't want to instigate something that is gonna be a waste of my time because 
lets all be honest

the DWP and the tribunal will get paid to deal with this stuff, we don't. It's just added stress, but I just feel bad that I lost out on that money for that long and had to go to the job centre when I wasn't actually unemployed.

There is some consolidation in the fact that some of it was in Covid but that's not the point.

 just really made me realise this is how a lot of people are missing out on money that is rightfully theres.

huckster

But there are plenty of places to ask for timely advice or information.

It is not anyone's fault if something did not happen because there was never a conversation specifically about a particular possible entitlement.

If you then boil this issue down, what the argument is about, are the rules/legislation regarding backdating.

6tw6et

Agreed.

I think now it's just a case for me to work out do I have any chance of being successful

because I know the DWP will reject it but they are known to get many cases wrong
and not specifically talking about mine.
people just don't bother with the tribunal and dwp get away with it.

So they are quick to point out people when they are not entitled to claim , which I fully agree with but ,

what about all those people that are entitled and didn't get the correct information
 again not specifically talking about me I'm talking about generally.

There are plenty of people out there that just don't have access to the Internet or access, or to speak to the right people. There are plenty of reasons people do not get the correct information and I literally say that because if it happened to me , it can happen to somebody else that doesn't have the same ability

because I'm not exactly that old and I don't have any health problems. I've just learned a massive lesson from this..

But back to the point if anybody has any information if this would be successful or not because the 13 month number is playing on my mind that would be great to know in the meantime I will be investigating it next week.

For all we know somebody in the future could read this post and think

wait I might actually caring for someone without claiming

Bemmy2525

Unfortunately it is up to the claimant to be aware of their benefit entitlement including any extra elements they may be eligible for. Unless you were given incorrect advice by a Work Coach or agent I can't see any further backdating being possible.

I thought you had to get Carers Allowance to get the Carer Element and was put in the Intensive Work Group as a result...my mistake.

6tw6et

I literally told my Work coach a few times the reasons that I can't apply for jobs and the carers situation was mentioned months down the line
 but it's just difficult to prove it however some stuff on my journal does show this evidence.

Yes, it's up to us to know, but it's their job to inform us of the available options otherwise what's the point of the DWP staff being there?

I agree with what you say and I've learned a lot from it but if we look at so many people that are not claiming it's because the information is confusing or contradictory.

You don't need to get carers allowance to get the carers element

Did consider this, but, I don't see the point in getting carers allowance... they just remove it from your universal credit payment. It just pays class 1 NI contributions which don't make a difference to me because the class three national insurance contributions are paid anyway that go towards the estate pension

 if anybody else knows better let me know..

You can't be in a intense worke group I would imagine because if you're a full-time carer, you don't have to look for Work.

I just remember going to the job centre and sitting around people that literally look like they don't want to work talking about how many cans they are going to drink literally this is what I come across and I thought this doesn't even make any sense because I can't work even if I wanted to... I think additionally I thought that my mum was getting money to look after my dad and then when I dug into this properly that stopped many years ago as soon as she hit pension age

6tw6et

Now that the complaint has been closed with the DWP and everything is back to normal, last week

I have just put a lengthy note on my journal that I want the caring element to go back to the start of my claim in 2018.

The original tribunal decision has nothing to do with this decision because that was a separate date.

I made references to certain notes in the journal that show I had to kept running back home and had his appointments at the job centre due to responsibilities with parents so there are various notes on the journal.

I don't understand the 13 month rule, because I'm not asking for a decision to be changed after 13 months I'm looking for the previous period of universal credit to be looked at and the carers element to be added so I'm not asking for anything to be looked at 13 months previous... I don't understand if that makes any sense but...its a new look at a previous period where UC only was claimed, not to look at a decision.

I mean, what's the worst they can do refuse it... I mean it doesn't affect my claim from the past because I was actively job seeking and looking after someone at the same time... so any advice on this would be good just in case they refuse it again is it worth pursuing it considering I have nothing to lose?

born_again

6tw6et said:I think additionally I thought that my mum was getting money to look after my dad and then when I dug into this properly that stopped many years ago as soon as she hit pension age

Carers Allowance stops at pension age.
If you are receiving UC & in a mixed age couple. If the carer is the one that reaches state pension age, you can still get carers element under UC.

https://www.carersfirst.org.uk/help-and-advice/topics/claiming-carers-allowance-when-you-re-state-pension-age/

6tw6et

Yes, exactly.. so nobody was getting anything at that point.

The only independent advice I've got so far... is to make sure that I can win this at a tribunal because it's not going to look good on my file with the DWP if it's refused, even if it's a mandatory reconsideration


So in essence, I was told to be prepared for it to go to a tribunal but I just want to be 100% that I'm going to win which I know is difficult. It's just so confusing. I don't want to instigate something before I know all the fact so at the moment I've just been told to officially put it in change of circumstances I haven't done that yet.

6tw6et

Im just going to put the request in.
I've done some reading about this and the way I'll look at it... a lot of forums that go in depth state that the 13 month rule is not as black-and-white as the DWP make out.. especially in this circumstance

Also nothing is 100% but at the end of the day I'm just looking at the tribunal to look at my exact same situation just for a previous date so if they said yes before or why would they say no now... what have I got to lose? My information is accurate and the DWP state information on the claim should be accurate so I need to update it irrespectively.\

Also, that doesn't seem to be anything that says the 13 month rule is relevant here. If the original period that I'm referring to has never been looked at then the 13 month rule should not apply.
I think the 13 month rule is for a mandatory reconsideration as I am not asking for a reconsideration I'm looking for the period to be looked at completely fresh.

I'm just confused, in a small way,  because I'm normally very good with these types of things.

I'm genuinely coming to the conclusion. I should just put it in and just let it run its course.